I would not discount the possibility of a properly backward compatible variant of IPv4 emerging, to address the very real needs of popular web servers that have no economically viable choice other than maintaining compatibility with IPv4 far into the future.
There is no possibility for a "properly backward compatible variant of IPv4." Any change to the protocol in which the goal is to increase the address space, which is the mean impetus for all of this, required a re-write which means no backward compatibility.
Vint Cerf, the "father of the Internet," had this to say about the decision to go with a 32-bit address space for IPv4. "It's enough to do an experiment," he said. "The problem is the experiment never ended."
I really don't understand this irrational fear of IPv6. It's just a frigg'n protocol. For most people they will plug in their network gear and it will just work. Just like it always has...just as my current dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network currently does. I did't have to do anything when my ISP enabled native IPv6. It just started working.
Sorry, dude but what you call "flexibility" is nothing but kludges to work around the short-comings of NAT.
You saying "NAT is normal" is like saying cancer is normal. It may be a part of current networking but like cancer no sane person wants to deal with it.
I read what you write and almost everything the opposite is true.
"With IPv4, NAT was normal." No, NAT was a kludge designed to deal with the fact that we were quickly running out of IPv4 addresses. If it wasn't for NAT we would have run out of IPv4 addresses more than a decade ago.
"But that means most users will use protocols which transmit their IPv6 address(es), including the local part, inside the protocol payload." All modern IPv6 implementations use temporary "privacy addresses." The local part is never exposed unless the enduser configures their systems to explicitly expose it.
"We will also see less flexibility regarding port numbers, because it's not needed anymore." What does that even mean?
Except for the fact that there is no NAT with IPv6 (thank the gods) and DHCPv6 is only used for prefix assignment. End nodes derive there own EUI-64 address from the MAC address and random temporary "privacy addresses" that are used for public connections.
You should post this one more time. Maybe the third-time's-the-charm. According to the statistics available here, https://www.google.ca/intl/en/... IPv6 is well on it's way.
While I agrees with most of what you wrote Bonjour is Apple's implementation of zero-configuration networking (zeroconf) and it has nothing to do with IPv6.
Yes, because the enterprise has been so good for the companies that have served it over the last twenty years. Look what happened to IBM, sold their PC business to Lenovo and now their server business as well to get out of the enterprise PC market. HP is on the verge of spinning off their PC business, Dell went private because their enterprise PC business is failing. And what happened to Compaq, DEC and countless others who died, consolidated with or were bought out by others. And what exactly has Microsoft's "iron grip" on the enterprise done for it lately?
Apple's PC business is growing just fine. They make more profit (1.) in their PC business than all Windows PC companies combined . Their PC business is growing faster than the Windows PC business. Since 2001 their PC business has grown sequentially every year with the exceptions of fiscal years 2003 and 2013. They are on track to sell over 22 million units in fiscal 2015.
Wait. You actually think the "focus of technology" has been "the ability to connect your virtual world with the real world?" You sir, need to get out of your basement and back to the real world.
Let me make a prediction for you. I predict, in less than 5 years, no one will be talking about Hololens let alone using it in any meaningful way.
If every device you buy includes a cable as a standard accessory then this legislation will do nothing to reduce waste. People will still end up with excess cables after they've discarded their old devices despite the fact that their new device could work with their old cable. Unless they are willing to also legislate the end of new cables being included with each new purchase nothing will change.
If the whole point of this legislation is to reduce the plethora of cables that people end up with every time they buy a new device then having multiple ports that serve different functions is not a solution either.
Wait. You start your rant complaining about Apple not using, according to you, "a common charger" and how that decision is why you don't buy their products and how that is a "free market" choice.
Then you complain how other people, exercising their "free market" choice and choosing Apple's products is somehow wrong because Apple is greedy and charges too much for their software. Wait, I thought we were talking about chargers.
Sorry but, what expensive software are you referring to exactly. Their operating systems? Can't be that, they don't charge for their operating systems. Must be their other software, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iTunes or Xcode? No, those are all free as well. Must be their professional software. Final Cut Pro $200, Motion $50, Compressor $50, Logic Pro X $200, Main Stage $30, Aperture $80. Those seem considerable less expensive than the competition. I'm sure if you did a comparison you'd agree with me.
It seems you support the free market but only if that free market agrees with you and if not then regulations should be used to force the corporations to bend you yourumm, I mean, I don't know what you mean anymore, you're all over the place.
Back to chargers for a second. What determines "common?" Apple has used only two different connectors over the course of about 11 years. The 30 pin connector that originated on the iPod and was used on a few generations of iPhone and iPad and the just recently introduced Lightning connector that now spans the entire current range of mobile devices. I think that's a pretty good track record.
Now let's contrast that with the history an plethora of connectors that were common on other mobile phones and devices. Even amongst a single manufacturer it was common to have different connectors amongst different models of products released in the same year let alone the fact that it was also common to change the connector every 2-3 years.
How about Apple's laptops. Apple introduced the MagSafe connector in 2006 and used the same connector across all its laptops. It wasn't until 2012 that they changed to a slightly thinner design to accommodate the thinner profile of their newer laptop computers.
As a developer you should keep up with the news. Microsoft already announced that they are not going to develop Silverlight past v5, the current version, and support for the current version will end in 2021.
In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it
And that was the 1970's version of what the NSA is doing today. The people who lived in the apartment with the telephone were the informants who kept an eye and "ear" on everyone who used that phone informing on the 'goings on' within the circle of people they interacted with. Low tech but effect enough for that time period.
I have the same thoughts about our current society as Woz does. It's becoming the very same society as the one that we railed against during the cold war and it sickens me.
Was it the fact that Android was built on Linux so they became complacent with the OS’s security policies?
Was it that they were so focused on taking the opposite approach to Apple’s curated store and seeming over-arching control that they went too far the other way?
Where did Google go so wrong? Have they gone wrong?
What will it take for them to finally do something about it because, up until now, they've barely paid lip service to the problem with their platform.
No one can say that iOS doesn’t have this problem because of a "security through obscurity" excuse as used for Mac OS when compared to Windows. iOS as a platform is just as large as Android when you count iPads and iPod touches along with iPhones.
Will Google finally break down and lock down their OS so that only curated apps can be installed? Can they after all this time?
Will they correct their broken permissions system that puts application permissions in the hands of the app developer rather than in the hands of the user where it belongs.
Very good point, in fact, from the miniusa.com web site legal page,
"the MINI name, MINI COOPER, MINI COOPER S and logos are registered trademarks."
I wonder if it is because they registered the name 'MINI' itself as opposed to using the word mini as a descriptive element of the name as in "COOPER MINI."
There actually is a fair way to measure. That is to count actual exploits and in this regard MS is way ahead and not in the good way.
I've read many times where "security experts" like to use vulnerabilities discovered as a metric in an effort to show how Apple's Mac OS is just as vulnerable as MS Windows but the fact is that is the wrong approach. The problem is that with modern operating systems vulnerabilities need to be strung together in a very particular order before an exploit can be declared and, at present, it seems that there has been more success stringing them together for Windows than OS X.
As for disclosing only what you've fixed, well duh! Only a totally incompetent company would disclose what they haven't fixed yet.
Well, there is a mechanism available to notify users of these updates, but I'm guessing MS is not that interested in handing over 30% of their price.
Yes, they think it's better to hand over 50%, or more, selling through retail. I think you'll find that future versions of Office for the Mac will be App Store apps going forward.
Actually, Office has had a mechanism to notify users of available updates since at least Office 2004 which was the last version of Office I used. Personally I find iWork for the Mac a much better office suite than MS Office. MS Office may be slightly more powerful in some of it's capabilities but it is archaic.
Slashdot Mirror
I would not discount the possibility of a properly backward compatible variant of IPv4 emerging, to address the very real needs of popular web servers that have no economically viable choice other than maintaining compatibility with IPv4 far into the future.
There is no possibility for a "properly backward compatible variant of IPv4." Any change to the protocol in which the goal is to increase the address space, which is the mean impetus for all of this, required a re-write which means no backward compatibility.
Vint Cerf, the "father of the Internet," had this to say about the decision to go with a 32-bit address space for IPv4. "It's enough to do an experiment," he said. "The problem is the experiment never ended."
http://www.networkworld.com/ar...
I really don't understand this irrational fear of IPv6. It's just a frigg'n protocol. For most people they will plug in their network gear and it will just work. Just like it always has...just as my current dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 network currently does. I did't have to do anything when my ISP enabled native IPv6. It just started working.
Sorry, dude but what you call "flexibility" is nothing but kludges to work around the short-comings of NAT. You saying "NAT is normal" is like saying cancer is normal. It may be a part of current networking but like cancer no sane person wants to deal with it.
I read what you write and almost everything the opposite is true.
"With IPv4, NAT was normal." No, NAT was a kludge designed to deal with the fact that we were quickly running out of IPv4 addresses. If it wasn't for NAT we would have run out of IPv4 addresses more than a decade ago.
"But that means most users will use protocols which transmit their IPv6 address(es), including the local part, inside the protocol payload." All modern IPv6 implementations use temporary "privacy addresses." The local part is never exposed unless the enduser configures their systems to explicitly expose it.
"We will also see less flexibility regarding port numbers, because it's not needed anymore." What does that even mean?
Except for the fact that there is no NAT with IPv6 (thank the gods) and DHCPv6 is only used for prefix assignment. End nodes derive there own EUI-64 address from the MAC address and random temporary "privacy addresses" that are used for public connections.
You should post this one more time. Maybe the third-time's-the-charm. According to the statistics available here, https://www.google.ca/intl/en/... IPv6 is well on it's way.
While I agrees with most of what you wrote Bonjour is Apple's implementation of zero-configuration networking (zeroconf) and it has nothing to do with IPv6.
Yes, because the enterprise has been so good for the companies that have served it over the last twenty years. Look what happened to IBM, sold their PC business to Lenovo and now their server business as well to get out of the enterprise PC market. HP is on the verge of spinning off their PC business, Dell went private because their enterprise PC business is failing. And what happened to Compaq, DEC and countless others who died, consolidated with or were bought out by others. And what exactly has Microsoft's "iron grip" on the enterprise done for it lately?
Apple's PC business is growing just fine. They make more profit (1.) in their PC business than all Windows PC companies combined . Their PC business is growing faster than the Windows PC business. Since 2001 their PC business has grown sequentially every year with the exceptions of fiscal years 2003 and 2013. They are on track to sell over 22 million units in fiscal 2015.
(1.) http://www.slate.com/blogs/mon...
Wait. You actually think the "focus of technology" has been "the ability to connect your virtual world with the real world?" You sir, need to get out of your basement and back to the real world. Let me make a prediction for you. I predict, in less than 5 years, no one will be talking about Hololens let alone using it in any meaningful way.
Wow! It almost sounds like you are saying that the lack of available updates for Android is a good thing.
This is nothing more than the Iranians tired of waiting for Hollywood to produce a Top Gun sequel that takes place in the middle east.
If every device you buy includes a cable as a standard accessory then this legislation will do nothing to reduce waste. People will still end up with excess cables after they've discarded their old devices despite the fact that their new device could work with their old cable. Unless they are willing to also legislate the end of new cables being included with each new purchase nothing will change.
If the whole point of this legislation is to reduce the plethora of cables that people end up with every time they buy a new device then having multiple ports that serve different functions is not a solution either.
Wait. You start your rant complaining about Apple not using, according to you, "a common charger" and how that decision is why you don't buy their products and how that is a "free market" choice.
Then you complain how other people, exercising their "free market" choice and choosing Apple's products is somehow wrong because Apple is greedy and charges too much for their software. Wait, I thought we were talking about chargers.
Sorry but, what expensive software are you referring to exactly. Their operating systems? Can't be that, they don't charge for their operating systems. Must be their other software, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iPhoto, iMovie, GarageBand, iTunes or Xcode? No, those are all free as well. Must be their professional software. Final Cut Pro $200, Motion $50, Compressor $50, Logic Pro X $200, Main Stage $30, Aperture $80. Those seem considerable less expensive than the competition. I'm sure if you did a comparison you'd agree with me.
It seems you support the free market but only if that free market agrees with you and if not then regulations should be used to force the corporations to bend you yourumm, I mean, I don't know what you mean anymore, you're all over the place.
Back to chargers for a second. What determines "common?" Apple has used only two different connectors over the course of about 11 years. The 30 pin connector that originated on the iPod and was used on a few generations of iPhone and iPad and the just recently introduced Lightning connector that now spans the entire current range of mobile devices. I think that's a pretty good track record.
Now let's contrast that with the history an plethora of connectors that were common on other mobile phones and devices. Even amongst a single manufacturer it was common to have different connectors amongst different models of products released in the same year let alone the fact that it was also common to change the connector every 2-3 years.
How about Apple's laptops. Apple introduced the MagSafe connector in 2006 and used the same connector across all its laptops. It wasn't until 2012 that they changed to a slightly thinner design to accommodate the thinner profile of their newer laptop computers.
As a developer you should keep up with the news. Microsoft already announced that they are not going to develop Silverlight past v5, the current version, and support for the current version will end in 2021.
In our apartment building in the late 1970's there was only one telephone. You had to ask the people living in the apartment to use it
And that was the 1970's version of what the NSA is doing today. The people who lived in the apartment with the telephone were the informants who kept an eye and "ear" on everyone who used that phone informing on the 'goings on' within the circle of people they interacted with. Low tech but effect enough for that time period.
I have the same thoughts about our current society as Woz does. It's becoming the very same society as the one that we railed against during the cold war and it sickens me.
...nothing!
What Happened?
Was it the fact that Android was built on Linux so they became complacent with the OS’s security policies?
Was it that they were so focused on taking the opposite approach to Apple’s curated store and seeming over-arching control that they went too far the other way?
Where did Google go so wrong? Have they gone wrong?
What will it take for them to finally do something about it because, up until now, they've barely paid lip service to the problem with their platform.
No one can say that iOS doesn’t have this problem because of a "security through obscurity" excuse as used for Mac OS when compared to Windows. iOS as a platform is just as large as Android when you count iPads and iPod touches along with iPhones.
Will Google finally break down and lock down their OS so that only curated apps can be installed? Can they after all this time?
Will they correct their broken permissions system that puts application permissions in the hands of the app developer rather than in the hands of the user where it belongs.
Trying to be the Joseph McCarthy of the 21st century.
Very good point, in fact, from the miniusa.com web site legal page,
"the MINI name, MINI COOPER, MINI COOPER S and logos are registered trademarks."
I wonder if it is because they registered the name 'MINI' itself as opposed to using the word mini as a descriptive element of the name as in "COOPER MINI."
True, but Apple also makes free software and they also make open source software so I guess it all balances out in the end.
There actually is a fair way to measure. That is to count actual exploits and in this regard MS is way ahead and not in the good way.
I've read many times where "security experts" like to use vulnerabilities discovered as a metric in an effort to show how Apple's Mac OS is just as vulnerable as MS Windows but the fact is that is the wrong approach. The problem is that with modern operating systems vulnerabilities need to be strung together in a very particular order before an exploit can be declared and, at present, it seems that there has been more success stringing them together for Windows than OS X.
As for disclosing only what you've fixed, well duh! Only a totally incompetent company would disclose what they haven't fixed yet.
He did not say an "illiterate person" he said a "computer illiterate" as in "illiterate" in the use of "computers." There is a big difference.
The most intelligent person in the world can be "computer illiterate" if he's never used a computer in his life.
Well, there is a mechanism available to notify users of these updates, but I'm guessing MS is not that interested in handing over 30% of their price.
Yes, they think it's better to hand over 50%, or more, selling through retail. I think you'll find that future versions of Office for the Mac will be App Store apps going forward.
Actually, Office has had a mechanism to notify users of available updates since at least Office 2004 which was the last version of Office I used. Personally I find iWork for the Mac a much better office suite than MS Office. MS Office may be slightly more powerful in some of it's capabilities but it is archaic.
BEST RETORT EVAR!
If you ever visited Canada in the winter you’d know that snow IS an weapon of mass destruction.
I don't even think he understands the significance of your "Woosh!" comment. I think you should spell it out for him before his head explodes.